Excerpt: - .....existing cause of action, yet the enquiry must be limited to the facts of the case apparent on the face of the plaint and any complicated question of law upon which a difference of opinion is possible should be avoided at this stage. i refer in this connection to the opinion expressed in perumal goundan v. thirumalarayapuram jananukoola dhanasekhara sanka nidhi ltd. air 1918 mad 362. i think in this particular case it cannot be said that the allegations of the petitioners do not show any subsisting cause of action. it may be that the agreement to pay was in consideration of the plaintiff's forbearing to institute any proceeding for compensation. the question of limitation undoubtedly may be raised by the defendant at the proper stage, but i cannot say that on the face of it the plaint.....

Judgment:ORDER

B.K. Mukherjea, J.

1. In my opinion this Rule must be made absolute. It is directed against an order rejecting the plaintiff's application for leave to sue as a pauper on the ground that the allegations in the petition do not show any cause of action. According to the Court below the suit was really to recover compensation in respect of injuries sustained by the applicant, while in the service of the defendant, on 2nd February 1933. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant did promise to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 500 as compensation for the injury done to him and the date of this agreement is said to be 9th May 1935. The suit evidently has been commenced within three years from this date and so, on the face of it, the plaint is not time-barred. What the trial Judge says, however, of this is that the accident happened on 2nd February 1933, the promise to pay any compensation for the same made on 9th May 1935, would be obviously an agreement to pay a barred debt and not being evidenced in the manner contemplated by Section 25 of Contract Act, the plaintiff would not be entitled in law to sue upon it.

2. In my opinion the matter is not altogether free from doubt and although I do not hold that it is not permissible for the Courts to enter into the question of limitation for the purpose of satisfying as to whether the application for leave to sue as a pauper does or does not disclose any existing cause of action, yet the enquiry must be limited to the facts of the case apparent on the face of the plaint and any complicated question of law upon which a difference of opinion is possible should be avoided at this stage. I refer in this connection to the opinion expressed in Perumal Goundan v. Thirumalarayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd. AIR 1918 Mad 362. I think in this particular case it cannot be said that the allegations of the petitioners do not show any subsisting cause of action. It may be that the agreement to pay was in consideration of the plaintiff's forbearing to institute any proceeding for compensation. The question of limitation undoubtedly may be raised by the defendant at the proper stage, but I cannot say that on the face of it the plaint does not disclose any existing cause of action. Under these circumstances the order of the Court below is set aside and the matter is sent back to that Court to be proceeded with according to law in accordance with the directions given above. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this Rule, the hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur.